poor highlights
I agree and its how i like to print 35mm street shooting but it should be underdeveloped not overdeveloped surely. Overdeveloped and a hard grade and its a loong day burning in all those highlights that have gone beyond scale of paper.
Not a pull per se just reducing contrast so that it prints on a higher grade.
Thank you for taking time to attach the scan -appreciated!
I am def. Confused by his explanation tho- i dont understand how one can have thinner negs with overexposure and overdevelopment as he describes. I have no idea how when he says negs have appearance of blocked highlights he can then go on to print at such a high contrast paper and not end up with a lot of burning in of highlights at a very soft grade
Id have thought a stop underexposure would create thinner negs not a stop over. Clearly his technique works with his equipment as his prints are not to be trifled with but his explanation doesnt make much sense to me unless im being really stupid here (which cannot be discounted!)
For the life of me i cant see how he can get what he calls thin negs out of this process. But i will get involved and see what happens as i like his work.
ah yes.i misread it first time round. Now it makes sense!Re-read what he says - Gibson states he doesn't like thin negs, and the process creates quite dense negs which he prefers - here's another pull quote from the same source:
View attachment 183119
The problem is all these developers give fine grain and overall image sharpness which is not what the OP is asking about.
Out of this list I've used 3 extensively Rodinal, Xtol (replenished0 and Pyrocat HD and I hate grain so can assure people that the negatives I produce(d) with them, 35mm and upwards, are sharp (good definition), tonal, and low grain even with the 35mm films I use.
I've used Beutler, FX1 & FX2 etc and plenty of other developers over the yearsand in all honesty the best commercially available developer for tight crisp grain like the OP's asking about is Microphen (ID-68) and a film like HP5. Probably the most exaggerated grain would be Paterson's long discontinued Acutol S, followed by Acutol.
Ian
I do agree that MCM 100 is a very sharp surface developer and if it weren't a pain to mix or get(no Meritol anymore) I might even use it myself. It's neat in how it really etches the emulsion of the film and it's really hard to tell which is the emulsion side because they are both very shiny. You have to hold the negative o an angle toward a light source to see the etching and then you can determine the emulsion side. This is a very good developer none the less.
This technique appears to deal only with negatives of the special case no9 detailed here:Try the following: rate TX (or HP5 or whatever) at 2 stops over box speed (EI 100 in this case) and process for what is suggested for an EI of 400-800. One stop over, & a bigger push is another approach. You'll essentially get the sort of negatives Gibson describes. Useful technique, but you'll need a reasonably powerful enlarger to get your exposure times in a good range. Don't even think about scanning the negs on an Epson, you'll need something much more serious.
Realy? Form my understanding MCM100
is a type of extreme finest grain developer.
As I would expect its characteristics I would compare it as "hyper Perceptol"
and this should be in also concern with
less contrast.
Lost of speed is the same as with Perceptol or lets better say : a litte speed is remaining.....
But I might be wrong.....
Yes in addition it is hard to get ppd.
In a some years more we could see the same with methol.
There might be some people who are always trying to drink this stuff - therefore
officials want to protect us from danger
and very "evil " developer compounds but same officials allowed companies to use same compound to wash your hair with (ppd)......
with regards
The version I use from Photographer's Formulary uses Catchol with ppd, it is full speed, no loss of contrast, development times are on the longish side. I also have Photo Formulary's version of Edwal 12, very sharp, good grain, no loss of speed, but high contrast, easy to blow out the highlights. PPD is toxic, need to use good gloves, mask, not to be used in house with small children. Photographer's Formulary also sells PPD, or did, but prices have really gone up, a gallon of MCM 100 runs about $48.00, for that reason I'm moving back to D 76.
Sure PPD has High price. And if I just could have it I remember equipment from army exercises.
I should have a look in my basement room perhaps I can find this stuff.
ABC equipment against atomic,biological,chemical contamination.
That should be quite enought against PPD......
with regards
This technique appears to deal only with negatives of the special case no9 detailed here:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html
Surely the only catch is that one would have to be willing to lose shadow detail to get the highlights in place as one prints down. If one wants to preserve shadow detail tho its going to need a lot of burning to get highlights in place
This technique appears to deal only with negatives of the special case no9 detailed here:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html
Not an really an issue - point is to create a relatively tonally condensed negative that needs printed on a hard grade of paper. It's essentially the not-secret-at-all technique that Ralph Gibson used.
Dilute Pyrocat-HD for semi-stand does NOT give fine grain.
Yup the only disadvantage to this is an extended exposure time under the enlarger (up to "several minutes" if I quote Gibson rightly).
MCM Photographer's Formulary
Potassium bromide .5 gram mix with water to make solution, do not add raw
Sodium sulfite 88 grams
P-phenylenediamine 7 grams
Catehol 9 grams
Borax 23 grams
Sodium phosphate 3 grams
water to make 1 liter.
Not a pull per se just reducing contrast so that it prints on a higher grade.
Thank you for taking time to attach the scan -appreciated!
I am def. Confused by his explanation tho- i dont understand how one can have thinner negs with overexposure and overdevelopment as he describes. I have no idea how when he says negs have appearance of blocked highlights he can then go on to print at such a high contrast paper and not end up with a lot of burning in of highlights at a very soft grade
Id have thought a stop underexposure would create thinner negs not a stop over. Clearly his technique works with his equipment as his prints are not to be trifled with but his explanation doesnt make much sense to me unless im being really stupid here (which cannot be discounted!)
It may be worth to take a look at self-brew developers such as Crawleys FX36,37 or 38. You have to mix them yourself but at least you know that it will be always available and fresh and that at low cost to you.Hello,
I didn't find any thread with deep information precisely on this...
I guess APUG is the right place for this question as here I've read tons of great information by real experts who have taken this seriously for a lifetime, and love and understand developers, films and chemistry...
When I've used Rodinal and Microphen, I've enjoyed beautiful tone, and totally crisp grain... Dillution matters sometimes, agitation sometimes, and temperature can be really relevant, or not that much... Some good for slow film, some for pushing...
I know some people prefer no grain (they call it fine grain, but it's dissolved and mushy, instead of fine...). I'd like to hear about all available developers that produce grain that's really sharp... Of course, even more enjoyable would be also knowing how they act, and how different visually and chemically they are and why, and which films seem to work better in which developers...
I hope this thread finds a good spirit to unite different members' perceptions, becoming a rich one in the long term... I find crisp grain is interesting for both tonality and perceived sharpness, and it's one of my favorite visual characteristics in a photograph, so I'll be checking this thread constantly, I hope every day for months... Thanks!
Back when I was still shooting I used a similar process. I overexposed approximately one f-stop then underdeveloped the film considerably to the point the images would require grade 4 paper for full tonal range in prints. Under white light inspection, I selenium toned negs to print on grade 3 Ilford Gallery FB. I found the overall tonality and acutance very pleasing... to me. Shadow detail was excellent, IMO. Prints were selenium toned also, to increase D-max and change the tone/hue of the prints from olive drab to neutral-plum.
The grain was extremely sharp and far more prevalent than with reduced exposure and solvent developers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?